January 7, 2011

The couple, who have three sons and still grieve for a daughter they lost soon after birth, are going to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to win the right to select sex by IVF treatment....

The man said: "After what we have been through we are due for a bit of luck. We want to be given the opportunity to have a girl."

The woman, who is consumed by grief over the daughter who died soon after birth, admits she has become obsessed with having a daughter and it has become vital to her psychological health.

Victoria's Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 bans sex selection unless it is necessary to avoid the risk of transmission of a genetic abnormality or genetic disease to a child.

How would you analyze this question? Abortion is legal there, and the woman has already used abortion as a method of sex selection. The case is about who may have access to advanced treatments.

Just like all those in certain ethnic communities who use abortion to sex select for boys.

When I think of all the couples I know who are having trouble conceiving, who'd gone though the expense of rounds of IVF, and in one case the pain of an almost-adoption (the baby mama changed her mind at the last minute) and these selfish pricks . . . .

In other news, 39% of NY pregnancies end in abortion - yup, safe legal and rare all right.

I believe it's entirely possible to make an anti-abortion argument without using a scrap of religious fallback. In such cases, you're making the point based on when civil liberties kick in, or, when is a fetus a person. I'm not sure what Australia's laws say about it, or if they're silent completely on when a citizen becomes a citizen.

I would, though, suggest as Trooper does that its abhorrent to end another human's life on a whim, not matter the background. Surely if you support such a cavalier approach to the unborn, you would support allowing men the legal ability to sign off on all parental responsibility, material or otherwise, if some whim-laden woman decides she wants to bring his seed to fruition.

"It is a logical extension of the support for killing babies at whim."

So true. And further down the road we will have folks aborting babies who don't fit the genetic makeup they prefer (Gattaca anyone?). Boy not genetically correct for a NFL star? Poof, be gone. Daughter not super smart AND super hot? To hell with that, we'll try again.

Everything will be on the table. Well, except for those who might want to choose to not have a homosexual child (it is genetics, right?) - that'll be a no-no.

If you take the right to abortion as given, to me it depends upon who is paying. If the individual is paying, they should have the right to advanced medical procedures. If the state is paying, then it should be restricted to those who cannot conceive without the advanced procedures.

They are, of course, monsters nonetheless. Their monstrosity might have been brought on by grief, but that is no excuse.

This couple is crazy. They killed two of their kids because they were of the wrong sex. What a message to their sons, we killed your brothers because we did not want any more boys. These people should be declared unfit parents and have their sons put up for adoption and given to a sane and loving set of parents.

Wait until they identify the gay gene (or sequence or cluster, whatever). At that point the pro-life movement will get a lot more fabulous really quick.

Thread winner.

Assume a world in which there in indisputable proof of a gay gene and then assume there are homophobic straight couples that want to terminate their unborn because they show the markers for being gay. The gay community, in short order, would find themselves preaching unborn rights. If the unborn gay have rights in the womb, surely they must have other rights as well...such as the right not to be vacuumed for starters.

I had a patient who was a serious devil worshiper. She was part of a group who would hold rituals, drink blood, and invite demons to enter them. I learned a lot about how those folks think from her.

She said that the killing of innocents was necessary for some of their ceremonies, and that the blood of a male was better than the blood of a female. She said it was to make a mockery of the sacrifice of Jesus because the demons appreciate that.

In terms of abortion, these souls are stolen from God. Not that their souls are forfeit, but God made them to live, to love, to bless His children and creation. And they are snuffed before they are allowed to be born.

As the father of two girls, I always thought it was stupid for people to ask "Are you going to try again for a boy?"

As the father of two girls, and the oldest brother of three brothers, I don't find this stupid at all. In fact, we thought we were done after the second girl and it was a bit of a bummer for me. I put the snip-snip off for a couple of months due to insurance changeover at work and, lo and behold, a son was born unto us.

It all worked out in the end exactly like we wanted it, but I do remember feeling almost a physical punch in the gut the day I realized I was going to be cutting my lawn for the rest of my life (lol...sorta)

And how would it make the girl feel? She'll read about her aborted brothers, won't she? Won't she find out she was created to be a girl, rather than a specific individual, and that she was supposed to replace another girl that died. At every point, the parents will think (or she may think they will think): Is she girl enough? Is she the girl the other girl would have been? She'd better be girly enough, because not to be a girl is to be wished dead by her parents. Will she rebel and go all tomboy?

I doubt many pro-lifers would abort simply because they discovered a gay gene. Pro-abortion folks would be in quite a quandry though, wouldn't they?

I also don't think a decision to abort a child based on a gay gene is automatically homophobic. There would be a myriad of factors flowing through the parent's minds and I don't think fear OF homosexuals would be a big one.

What's interesting to me is what would parents do if they had the medical option of manipulating the genetic makeup of their unborn child. Would they change them from homosexual or heterosexual? It's the woman's body after all and she can do what she wants.

My wife and I have three living sons and one who we sadly lost in childbirth. Occasionally we will wistfully comment about how we wanted a little girl (there are four families with girls on our street), but my wife is quick to say she never would trade our sons for anything. Nor would I.

The point that is "stupid" is that the decision to have another child would be based upon whether I wanted a boy or not.

The chances of having a boy versus a girl were even. (But a friend who just had her third boy said that research shows that, after having two children of the same sex, the third child is 75% likely to be the same sex. I haven't checked this, but her husband is a doctor and she said they looked into it.)

If I was "trying" for another child, it would be because I would be happy with another child, not because I want a boy.

TWN saidI doubt many pro-lifers would abort simply because they discovered a gay gene. Pro-abortion folks would be in quite a quandry though, wouldn't they?

You are out of your mind dude. They would do it in a minute. Once you decide that it is not a baby but a lump of protoplasm it is damn easy to shop for all the right add on's and features. It would even be possible that gay parents would abort any baby that didn't have the gay gene. It would not be a big deal to them after all.

Wait until they identify the gay gene (or sequence or cluster, whatever). At that point the pro-life movement will get a lot more fabulous really quick.

There already is a female gene. And it has been used millions of times to abort little girls in China and India and elsewhere.

And all of that sex-selection abortion is done to the enthusiastic cheers of NOW and NARAL and every other rabid feminist group.

But then again, most contemporary feminists are, in fact, anti-woman. They hate what is authentically woman and exclusive to her.

And there is also a fair amount of self-hate with gays (certainly a hatred of the inherent sexual nature of the human person). Together with that, there is the undeniable fact of many gays engaging in self-destructive, life-risking activity, which has led to the epidemic of AIDS within that group. So I don't know that we should automatically presume that they would be all that hot to suddenly become pro-life if a "gay gene" were found.

"You are out of your mind dude. They would do it in a minute. Once you decide that it is not a baby but a lump of protoplasm it is damn easy to shop for all the right add on's and features."

Trooper, what I meant was that pro-abortion folks are probably on the whole also very pro-gay rights. (Not all obviously, just as not all pro-life folks are "homophobic"). So they would be having mini-head explosions having to put their money where their mouth is so to speak and decide to have a gay child.

I agree that they will choose to abort, both because they don't value life but also because they don't really give a hoot about gays.

What's interesting to me is what would parents do if they had the medical option of manipulating the genetic makeup of their unborn child. Would they change them from homosexual or heterosexual? It's the woman's body after all and she can do what she wants.

That depends greatly on when such manipulation would take place. Before or after conception? If before, no problem. If after, I can easily see a law that would make it illegal to tamper with the genetic makeup of a viable human fetus.

To start analyzing the question, I would start by offering the family some grief counseling. They are grieving. They are not thinking rationally.

Then, we can pick it apart. Australia has socialized medicine. If they are willing to pay for it themselves (and possibly be willing to travel to a place where it is legal), have at it. If they want the state to pay for it, you get what you pay for.

Personally, I don't think that sex selection IVF should be illegal in the first place, but given that it is, deal with it.

Allowing couples to choose the sex of their children through IVF is allowed in the US and it has not resulted in a lopsided, unbalanced set of children for a variety of reasons. (1) In the US, parents are just as likely to want a boy as to want a girl. (2) It is generally not covered by insurance, so you have a lot ($10k+) of skin in the game. You would need to be mighty motivated to shell out that kind of money. (3) Most people who undergo IVF are infertile and want a baby. For the most part, they don't care whether said baby is a boy or a girl. (4) IVF is a risky, painful, time-consuming proposition, so again, you would have to be awfully motivated. Most people don't care that much whether their babies are pink or blue.

"That depends greatly on when such manipulation would take place. Before or after conception? If before, no problem. If after, I can easily see a law that would make it illegal to tamper with the genetic makeup of a viable human fetus."

So it will be legal to kill a viable human fetus but not to manipulate it gentically? What if the gene is not apparent until after conception? What if you can cure any number of diseases or conditions that way? If that's an appropriate use of that medical breakthrough then why not to change the gay gene?

Pathetic and sordid. There are lots of people that want a boy or a girl. It's not my government, but this points out the problem with anything the government pays for. Now everyone else has a say in what you do. It's a form of despotism and oppression by the majority.

Secondly, what kind of sick thought leads them to think that another girl will be the same girl as the one that died?

Pathetic people, they need to learn to accept that life includes death, at least so far, and once someone is dead, they are not replaced.

I feel bad for any child born to them having to live someone else's life in her parents' eyes.

So it will be legal to kill a viable human fetus but not to manipulate it gentically?

Nope. I'm pretty much a'gin the first, Gattica enough to be fine with the latter as far as things go generally. When I said, no problem, I meant that you're not tampering with what would be considered a person under a legal system that prohibits abortion.

This happens all over the world & throughout time to select boys. If it were me in the situation, I'd probably adopt a girl from India or China. I always wanted twin boys though and have a soft spot for the very, eer, concept.

I don't actually have a problem w/ the practice even in those countries - I have a problem w/ the deeper societal attitude behind it.

In any case, I think parents should be allowed to select for a lot more than sex. The kids do suffer, imo, more than the parents when they are unwanted and/or deemed unlovable by society's standards.

Oddly, this attitude makes me admire rather than revile Sarah Palin's choice - but I don't envy the kid's life.

Bottom line, I would rather have been aborted than be born into a situation, either familial or societal, where the chances were high, I would spend my life unwanted. I can't see forcing that situation on kids.

@TWM: People have selected for smart/hot as much as possible throughout the centuries - what do you think all that young women marrying rich guys is about? That is selection, and yeah, it is harsh - to the living, not the almost born.

@Bender at 11:21: I agree that abortion should be a feminist issue, but clearly the feminists are on the wrong side. It is the female embryos that are being aborted and on a grand scale. If you think it only happens in India and China and not here, you are crazy....Abortion should join foot binding and genital mutilation as atrocities that women visit upon women.

Ge has been critizied for their ultrasound machines . The machines allow people to choose their offspring sex. Result: 100 million girls aborted in IndiaSweden, it is illegal to show the sex of a future baby to parents. A woman took a peek and when she knew that she was pregnant with a girl , she aborted . The court said, the motives to abort are indifferent.

In Canada, as I understand it, it is illegal for anyone to pay for any medical procedure that is offered by the govt medical system. This is whether the person is eligible for state paid procedure or not.

I am not clear on whether this is the case in Australia or not. (I might even be wrong in my understanding of Canada)

So is this a case of needing state approval because there is no other way to pay for the procedure?

"@TWM: People have selected for smart/hot as much as possible throughout the centuries - what do you think all that young women marrying rich guys is about? That is selection, and yeah, it is harsh - to the living, not the almost born."

I'm not really sure what you're trying for here, but I would rather have not been chosen for a few pick-up basketball games or turned-down for a few dates than have been aborted. I'd also rather my children experience life, both the good and the bad, than be thrown out with the medical waste.

Marshal, she was smoking at first. Not so much as things progressed. Her husband had sexually abused their daughter (who was 7 I think) in the rituals and was fighting to get more access to her child, so she was a wreck worrying about that. Well, and I can't see how serial demonic invocations can be, you know, good for you.

"What if you knew your child would die in horrible pain shortly after birth?"

Been there, done that. We were told our third son, Benjamin Isiah, would only live for a short time after birth (he had multiple birth defects). We had the option of terminating the pregnancy early, but did not do so. Those moments with him were some of the most cherished in our lives. As to his pain, you would be amazed as to how well modern medicine can deal with that.

Opinions in this country fall into two self-styled camps: Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. This Australian case is an example why I have staked out and occupy a third camp, which I believe is the only rational position one can hold in a pluralistic secular democracy.

If there was a way to screen for the "gay gene" I would SO be into that!

Do you know how much Italian mothers worry about the day that some girl takes my little man away from me?

If he were to be gay (fingers crossed!), I'd get another, even more awesome son maybe, and we'd all go to museums together!

I'm. Not. Even. Kidding. My mother agrees with me! She had hoped my own brother would turn out to be gay (no dice; and married to an IRISH girl!) or even better, a priest!

Back to topic - well, IVF does not in fact have to result in the destruction of so many embies. In Italy, for example, there are more strict rules for clinics. They have just as good success rates too, with only growing one or two "good" embies rather than here where ART is like the Wild West. I could go on and on about this, having had my own "five years in the Wild West" as it were.

Weirdly, I was pro-choice BEFORE my IF experience. Now am pro-life. But still a secular humanist. The two things *should* go together, I think.

Losing a child causes terrible pain. I can't believe there are medical professional who are willing to put her through more trauma when she is suffering such unimaginable grief. Grief makes her crazy--does anyone seriously think that a baby girl will cure her? I sure don't.

Last I looked, most doctors in British Columbia would not tell the sex of the fetus to Indian or other parents likely to abort girls. So an enterprising guy set up a walk-in ultrasound clinic in Bellingham, just across the border.

Perhaps, but the poor girl, should she ever come about, will have done nothing to deserve them.

t-man,

"If the state is paying, then it should be restricted to those who cannot conceive without the advanced procedures. "

Oh dear ghu no. If the state is paying, they should get ZERO benefits for fertility treatments of any kind. While I am a parent, and think parenthood is wonderful, I think you have ZERO right to fertility treatments at my (and the rest of your fellow-citizens') expense, any more than I think you have a right to height- or breast-augmentation surgery at our expense.

mariner - maybe not here, but somewhere. I recall reading that there is a region of the world where they have a lot of $$ from this black, gooey substance, and where they REALLY don't like gays. Throw enough money at any problem . . . And no, I am not advocating this.

If this woman's mother is still alive, then she should revoke her own decision to let her daughter be born...just do it for the grandchildren. You could get a super powerful vacuum cleaner and suck the daughter's brain out through her skull. If that process kills her foetus too, so what. He would have died anyway.

My house sits just downhill from the crest of a fairly steep hill and is irregular in shape. My wife cannot cut most of my lawn with a strong, self-propelled mower. As such, I would never expect my girls, even as teens, to do so. It's sort of a joke, sort of not.

It's a bit of a moot point, though, as the son we have is, at a strapping 15-months, probably strong enough to start this year. Seriously...he's a moose. Pure linebacker potential.

In many past discussions with pro-choice folks we would get into the "abortion as a women's issue" discussion. It was always the opportunity to point out that the leading reason for abortion in India is "female sex". I presume its a big reason in China.

The woman, who is consumed by grief over the daughter who died soon after birth, admits she has become obsessed with having a daughter and it has become vital to her psychological health.

Read that sentence carefullly. A woman who is so consumed by grief that she is obsessed with having a daughter that it is vital to her psychological health will not becumb healthy by having a daughter. No, this woman is not fit to be a mother and they should consider taking away her sons.

Australian IVF pioneer Gab Kovacs - not involved in the case - said he could not understand why the couple should be banned from having a girl. "I can't see how it could harm anyone," he said. "Who is this going to harm if this couple have their desire fulfilled?"

C-3...Feminism is the demand that women recieve equal treatment. The "right to abort babies" is sold as a woman's right to be free from the 9 month disability called pregnancy...just like men are. The the dark side emerges that the power to murder the children is a huge power granted to women with no restraints. Now the Feminists wont give up that power anymore than a nuclear power will agree to surrender its nukes...except for a surcoming and bowing Obama.

Other than that, though, I find the prohibition of choosing sex, or choosing anything in a child - hair color, intelligence, physique or sexuality (to whatever extent possible) pretty darn illustrative of the moral gymnastics attached to reproductive *anything*.

It's one of those areas where certain segments of the unwashed masses, in the form of (not so) low-brow science fiction, have been struggling with the moral questions for decades upon decades and generally have come up with something coherent, while those not so into genre fiction... twist.

There is no logical or moral reason at all to insist that the fig-leaf of random-factors be artificially applied to an artificial process.

None.

It doesn't make the process something different from what it is. It just soothes the conscience of those who must somehow maintain an incoherent set of beliefs.

Logically and rationally... if it is acceptable to terminate a pregnancy at the whim of the mother... all else must follow. How does one support the notion that there is something *important* about the product of random reproduction in the context of mother's whim? How does one support the notion that there is something *important* about the impact on society of allowing parents to chose to discard one and keep another in the context of the *sanctity* of mother's whim?

And more than that... at what point is it in any way logical to claim that an earlier choice, rejecting a fertilized ovum (and most are so much lab trash in any case), is morally suspect while a later culling is good and right and necessary to a woman's expression of self?

It seems to me to be opposite... that logically a person could easily conclude that the earlier choice was the moral one and the later choice immoral.

What it boils down to is that abortion is barbaric and primitive and technology is frightening. In the end, tearing a fetus from the womb of a woman is something that can be done by any Gaul with a large knife and a moment to spare amid the rape and pillage.

But technology is frightening and reproductive technology is frightening. And rather than ask the hard questions, particularly those that ask is it moral to create life for the purpose of its destruction, our society contorts itself. It contorts itself so that coldly choosing the attributes of your child (even in cases where it's not a grief stricken crazy woman insisting) is viewed with horror while the multitude of fertilized ova simply flushed for no reason has no moral weight at all. It contorts itself so that a clone created to be killed is just an important lab experiment opposed only by crazy religionists, while the creation of a human clone without planning its death is something that certainly must never be condoned.

In 2009, there were 225,667 pregnancies in the City with 126,774 resulting in live births and 87,273 resulting in abortions. In addition to those abortion numbers, there were 11,620 spontaneous terminations.Forty-six percent of all births in the Bronx result in abortions—the highest among the five boroughs, according to the report.Blacks had the highest number of abortions with 40,798 with Hispanics having the second highest at 28,364, according to the report.

So 69,162 of the 87,273 abortions were performed on black or hispanic women.

I'd just like to note that the claim that pro-life people would abort fetuses with a "gay gene" is supposing that a pro-life person would have the tests done to begin with and thus be faced with the question.

There are different points at which decisions are made. Pro-life tends to figure that the most important decision point, the place where "choice" is appropriate, is conception.

If abortion isn't an option, why have the tests done? If nothing else you run the risk of having a "counselor" messing with your convictions while you're in a vulnerable place.

Utilitarianism, which is the foundation of so much of the culture of death and objectification of the human person, once again shows itself to be the horrific evil that it is.

Utilitarian morality gets a lot of bad press, but in reality almost everyone uses it some of the time.

For example, the world record holder for the personal killing of innocent people is Tom Ferebee, the bombardier of the Enola Gay. Try coming up with a rebuttal to the statement "Tom Ferebee was monstrously evil" that doesn't resort to utilitarianism.

Woof;I'll take the bait. So we seem to cringe at the idea that a mother can abort a fetus because he's the wrong sex. So what circumstance makes a fetus's live not worth protecting? Rape, abusive spouse, relationship breakup...?

And as a follow up question, what circumstances make a 1 year old's life not worth protecting?

Pro-life tends to figure that the most important decision point, the place where "choice" is appropriate, is conception.

"What if you're raped ?"

Then you legitimately didn't have a choice, didn't you. Few people, even those who would hope that a woman find the strength not to abort the child who is innocent of it, are interested in forcing a rape victim to do so.

The "what about rape" thing is a pro-choice stick that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny since pro-choice doesn't actually believe in making that distinction in any way whatsoever. As soon as a pro-choicer said anything like "women are responsible beings, not children, and should be expected to actually *be* in control of their reproduction unless it is legitimately a case where that control is taken from her by force, ie., because of rape or legitimate incapacity due to mental illness or age" the pro-choice police would arrive in their black helicopters, strip search her for her pro-choice membership card, destroy it, and then brand "collaborator" on her forehead.

Spontaneous abortion (also known as miscarriage) is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus due to accidental trauma or natural causes before approximately the 22nd week of gestation...Most miscarriages are due to incorrect replication of chromosomes...Between 10% and 50% of pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage....One study testing hormones for ovulation and pregnancy found that 61.9% of conceptuses were lost prior to 12 weeks, and 91.7% of these losses occurred subclinically, without the knowledge of the once pregnant woman.

And as a follow up question, what circumstances make a 1 year old's life not worth protecting?

This is a good question. My head wanted to explode when I found out the manager of an apartment complex I lived at during college (he was an associate professor with KMARX on his license plate) told me a good argument could be made not to see children as people until they are 8 or 9.

Because pro-life people really are not interested in compounding the trauma to a woman and really do recognize that the woman *and* the child are involved.

Or why have quite the reaction of horror to the woman in Australia who wants to have a girl to replace her dead one? At least part of it is a recognition of the impact on the mental health of the woman. I think that "necessary for my mental health" is code words to try to force the state to pay for and allow the procedure, just like "religious conviction" might be used by an American trying to get the Supreme Court on their side. But considering the abortion of the twin boys it seems clear that she's actually not psychologically *well*.

Would we be so horrified to find that someone who had several boys wanted a girl, or someone wanted a boy and girl? We might tut about the reality of children not cooperating well with parental plans, after the fact, but that's not the same.

The child is innocent, even in a rape. Absolutely. And it doesn't become something *else* simply because of the circumstances, wanted or unwanted, as value is gauged among pro-abortionists, but it's as wrong to say that there is *only* the child involved as to say that *only* the mother is involved, and that it's her whim and choice over something that doesn't even exist until she decides that it does.

To what end? So we can get into an argument over whether all 70,000 of the people Ferebee killed were innocent, or just the couple of thousand children who weren't old enough to talk yet? Or perhaps something in between? :)

My point is that it was a war for survival and Japan was wholly engaged...started it, in fact. There are no innocents in that setting and cops-n-robber analogies don't apply.

But that's a utilitarian argument -- we needed to bomb them to prevent them from killing us.

Saying "there are no innocents" is silly. If a child can be declared "guilty" then infanticide is morally acceptable. Just define the child as "guilty of wasting the parents' time and money" and presto, killing them's ok.

I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised at how uniformly anti-choice your commenters are. I always think of this blog as part of the political middle, so I expected a bit more diversity of opinion.

I don't see the parents as "fucking monsters" in any way. This is what abortion is - the decision to terminate a life (or lives) because the parent (mother really) chooses not to take the pregnancy to term.

To me, it has always been obvious that there is far more social harm done when the state tries to prevent abortion. So, what is not forbidden is allowed and what is allowed and done by others is none of my damn business.

While I don't know the laws of Australia, I wouldn't think that this couple's IVF should be state funded. They have biological children, and they appear to still be fertile. But if they pay for it themselves, I have no problem with sex-selecting embryos for implantation.

As for China, India, and other cultures that have regrettable biases, well, cultural change often only comes from pain. Perhaps after a couple of generations of life-long bachelors, these cultures will come to realize that they need to reevaluate.

Just define the child as "guilty of wasting the parents' time and money" and presto, killing them's ok.

There are worlds of difference between killing someone at a whim because they are a waste of time and money and killing them in a war to prevent them from growing up and becoming either soldiers, workers, or producers of more soldiers.

Lots of us who are anti-abortion do not think it is the proper place for us as people to decide whether the innocent live or die. I take it a step more and oppose the death penalty for the same reason.

We see children as a good gift from God, and it is not up to us to select which of his gifts we receive. Gay gene or something serious like serial killer gene, it is not up to us.

A common mistake is to equate "pro-choice" with "pro-abortion". There are plenty of people who believe both (a) that the mother has the right to choose but (b) that doing so for trivial reasons is immoral. Most of the women in my family feel that way.

The belief that abortion is no big deal and it's cool to keep aborting fetuses until you get the kind you want is VERY much a minority position in America -- even though, yes, it does make sense intellectually.

I might be off by a decimal or two, but I'd say that like 99.99999% of "pro-life" people think that they are doing God's will. But since God Himself aborts 2/3 of all fetuses, a more reasonable interpretation of His will would be that it's the abortionists who are furthering His work, by killing off the few that He missed.

Why do you pro-life people insist on banning abortion and thus defying God?

I'm sure the arguments aren't made with any more seriousness than that, so perhaps I ought to leave it be.

Still...

We all die. If that makes God a murderer, does it require us to help Him kill those he missed?

It might make a sort of "fun" concept for a novel where a fellow (we'll call him "Jack") concludes that because God allows the death of so many, that death must be His purpose, and so Jack sets out to complete that purpose.

We can even add in that because every time that God has destroyed an entire population that He has retained a remnant of His own and have Jack stockpiling co-eds as his remnant once he's done killing everyone else God so carelessly missed.

There are worlds of difference between killing someone at a whim because they are a waste of time and money and killing them in a war to prevent them from growing up and becoming either soldiers, workers, or producers of more soldiers.

Indeed there is... in a utilitarian moral system, where people are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.

Smilin' Jack wrote: Why do you pro-life people insist on banning abortion and thus defying God?

That has to the second most wrongheaded piece of rhetoric I've read on this blog. You apparently believe you've advanced the Pro-Choice position, but what you've actually done is to equate the morals of terrorists with abortion.

These people seriously believe they can control their procreative outcome. Does the world owe them this power?As depicted in Gattaca, you can engineer the most perfect offspring and then - splat - life happens, and they're struck by a car and paralyzed.

People with a variety of views on abortion policy can nonetheless condemn the practice of abortion for sex-selection.

What about abortion for conception: embryo reduction.

It involves the injection of a lethal chemical under guidance by ultrasound, directly into the heart chamber(s) of one or more developing concepti around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy. This results in the conceptus immediately succumbing whereupon it is slowly absorbed over a number of weeks, without doing harm to the surviving concepti.

IIRC, the meddling in GATTACA was primarily to solve "health" and quality of life issues. The "love-child" protagonist was shown, after birth, to have a genetic predisposition for heart failure. As such he was barred from various careers since everyone just assumed he'd drop dead any moment now because he was genetically flawed. But the truth of it was that genes are not destiny and he was, after all, physically strong enough.

There aren't many, actually, who'd object today of choosing to avoid genetic disease or weakness, no matter if we cringe at the notion of choosing sex or hair color.

John;I have to admit that I'm a bit surprised at how uniformly anti-choice your commenters are.

While as I read the rest of your comment I had a faint chill go down my spine ("As for China, India, and other cultures that have regrettable biases, well, cultural change often only comes from pain.") I'll stick to your introductory comment. I would wager few pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates (at least not the ones I've spoken with, and I've spoken with quite a few) would want to use this case as a "shining example" of the wonderful outcomes of liberal abortion laws.

Likewise I wouldn't see a decidely negative reaction to this case as an indication of the "rabid" nature of the crowd. Quite simply, this case is disgusting.

And to push a particular liberal Australian hot button:

"Why doesn't she just adopt an aboriginal girl? Is it also a particular color she's looking for?"

About her psychological health, I concur that she is suffering from at least complicated bereavement. She is likely depressed as well.

Offering her multiple attempts to "replace" her girl only compromises her health more. This keeps the ill fantasy alive, it keeps her focused on the past, it keeps her thinking she can replace the lost child as a way of avoiding her grief. But she can't.

It reminds me of Salvador Dali. He was born nine months after his infant brother died and he was given the name of that brother and raised believing that he was that brother. At 5 he was taken to his brother's grave and told that.

Another good question (a part of the reason why the Catholic church has issues with fertility care. I'm not Catholic)

It is a disturbing idea that a woman can just as easily ask that one of her fertilized eggs be implanted and carried to term and then provide a warm, loving environment for that child/person as she can request that that fertilized eggs and all of its siblings be destroyed.

I don't have a great answer for that. I personally don't have a provide (at least not much) with IUD's. I've inserted them myself.

Your question is an example of how our technology has outpaced our ethics.

Woof, it took me a while to figure out what you were asking, but yes, I oppose embryo reduction. As a logical extension of that position, I would also oppose implanting more embryos than have a reasonable chance of survival.

Some women cannot produce eggs so they need donor eggs. These are hard to come by. It has been pointed out that a potential great source of eggs would be aborted female fetuses. (A woman has the most eggs she'll ever have as a fetus.)

The technology is there. I'm not aware of anyone doing it (and I'm not aware of any particular law proscribing it.)

If it were done we would produce children who's biologic mother NEVER EXISTED!

I would also oppose implanting more embryos than have a reasonable chance of survival.

If you implant too few embryos, then you run the risk of having no embryos take. Too many, then you have high multiple births which may result in un-healthy children or a financial burden on the family.

@JohnG I don't see the parents as "fucking monsters" in any way. This is what abortion is - the decision to terminate a life (or lives) because the parent (mother really) chooses not to take the pregnancy to term. To me, it has always been obvious that there is far more social harm done when the state tries to prevent abortion.

Well, I described them as "fucking monsters" and I stand by it - and you'll note I also oppose criminalizing abortion, though I hate seeing my tax dollars spent facilitating it.

So the standard line from you pro-abortion/choice/death side is that it's all about a woman taking control of her body, not having to bear an unwanted pregnancy, etc., correct? Well this psychotic bitch WANTS to get pregnant and bear a child, she wants her belly to swell, her ankles to thicken and her ass to broaden - she just wants a CERTAIN KIND of child. And not just a healthy child free of genetic defects like Downs or, God forbid, Taye Sachs - no, she wants a perfect little girl. So now it's really no longer about "her body" is it? Not about unwed teen mothers, victims of rape and/or incest, career women unable to handle a child "at this point in their career" or poor, dumb minorities - it's about whacking her unborn children until she gets the exact one she wants.

Hell, she she should probably lose custody of the children she has for their safety.

But you know, you're actually sort of right - she is the logical end-point of an abortion-on-demand policy. Which is why this case should make you hide your head in shame.

There's no need for "rare" if there's nothing undesirable about getting an abortion, if there is cause to celebrate having had an abortion, to get a T-shirt, to say as one woman minister did that abortion is a blessing and is a blessing when gotten by a married woman with plenty of money and a supportive husband.

There is no need for "rare" if nothing bad is involved.

Argue "legal" and "safe" and perhaps have an argument that can stand some sort of scrutiny.

Only if you prefer "rare" for the sake of the baby as opposed to, say, the mother.

Abortion's a surgical procedure. Who, aside from particularly greedy surgeons, wants any surgical procedure to be common? The "rare" line is really just a way of saying we should be focused on pregnancy prevention -- but that's a fine goal even if you think a fetus is just a meaningless lump of tissue.

Thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I don't consider abortion no big deal. I don't make any attempt to sugar-coat the fact that one human dies as part of this. And for the mothers, this is often one of the most heartbreaking and frightening decisions they ever face. It's a very sad, hard, ugly component of modern life. It's an event that I hope touches as few people as possible.

However, the alternative appears to be much worse in terms of consequences to women and in terms of where the interests and powers of the state end and personal control begins. I don't want the state to be in the position of determining if I have the 'right motives' or if I'm 'pure of heart' as a precondition to operate in society. States have shown time and time again that they are not good at moderating such power.

I don't know the Australian couple. I don't know if they were intimidated by the barriers to sex-seleaction IVF and decided to "roll the dice" or even if they were trying to get pregnant. I don't know if they already had a plan in place to abort if she wasn't carrying a girl, or if the then very real prospect of having 4 boys and then trying again for a girl was just so crushing that they didn't see any way out. I don't know if they saw the abortion as a simple, consequence-free procedure or if they're up every night still trying to figure out how much of them died on the day they did it. Neither does anyone else here.

All I know is that I feel sorry for them - that they lost a daughter, and that something so intensely personal is spending its 15 minutes in the spotlight of internet moralizing, etc.

When you talk about "in the first trimester" as casually as referring to the newly-fertilized ovum, you mislead greatly. Perhaps it's through ignorance, in which case you should take some time to learn about fetal development.

Such a prospect often prompts prospective parents to consider selective fetal reduction in the case of a high-order gestation. Though a heart-rending decision, it is a relatively safe procedure whereby it is possible to reduce the number of concepti in the uterus without harming the remaining one(s). It involves the injection of a lethal chemical under guidance by ultrasound, directly into the heart chamber(s) of one or more developing concepti around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy.

He was born nine months after his infant brother died This happened with my father, but they used a new name. Somewhere I have my grandfather's daily notes on the health of his first born. They peter out a week before baby Ralph K L, Jr. died. My dad was spoiled but not warped by being an only child.

What if you're raped?One of your male relatives is supposed to kill you before the first trimester is over.

Revenant, I think that "rare" includes "for the sake of the mother" because it would require arguing that the surgical element is undesirable; that maybe there is even the slightest risk to some of the options or else the possibility that there is an emotional or psychological element to the decision that potentially harms the mother.

Maybe I'm wrong. I suppose that a stalwart person could wander over to feministing and carry out experiments to find out if there is some element of "rare" that is considered a reasonable pro-choice opinion to hold.

I wanted to say again that because the couple is trying to get Australia to pay for their medical treatment they *have* to portray it as a medical, ie. psychological, necessity.

It's necessary to play up the psychological need in order to get the procedure funded.

Some larger lesson could probably be taken from this about having the state in charge of deciding what you "need" or don't need as far as medical assistance or having them mucking about in health care at all.